[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 116 (Monday, June 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33985-33988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13490]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-520-802)


Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: We determine that certain steel nails (nails) from the United 
Arab Emirates (UAE) are not being, or are not likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 
735(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated 
margins of sales at not LTFV are shown in the ``Final Determination'' 
section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Goldberger or Kate Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-4929, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 23, 2008, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the 
antidumping duty investigation of nails from the UAE. See Certain Steel 
Nails From the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination, 73 FR 3945 (January 23, 2008) (Preliminary 
Determination).
    In the Preliminary Determination, based on our examination of the 
petitioners'\1\ targeted dumping allegation filed on October 26, 2007, 
we preliminarily determined that there is a pattern of export prices 
for comparable merchandise that differs significantly among purchasers. 
Therefore, based on the petitioners' allegation, we conducted an 
analysis to determine whether targeted dumping occurred. The Department 
further stated that it was in the process of re-assessing the framework 
and standards for both

[[Page 33986]]

targeted dumping allegations and targeted dumping analyses, and that it 
intended to develop a new framework in the context of this proceeding. 
We invited comments regarding certain principles involved in targeted 
dumping allegations and analyses. Accordingly, we received comments 
from the petitioners and the respondent Dubai Wire FZE/Global Fasteners 
Ltd (Dubai Wire) on February 15, 2008. These parties submitted rebuttal 
comments on March 10, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are: Mid Continent Nail Corporation; Davis 
Wire Corporation; Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation (Atlas Steel & Wire 
Division); Maze Nails (Division of W.H. Maze Company); Treasure 
Coast Fasteners, Inc.; and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 
International Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From March 3 through March 12, 2008, we verified the constructed 
value (CV) and sales questionnaire responses of Dubai Wire. On March 31 
and April 1, 2008, we issued the CV and sales verification reports, 
respectively. See Memorandum to the File entitled ``Verification of the 
Cost Response of Dubai Wire FZE in the Antidumping Investigation of 
Certain Steel Nails from the UAE,'' dated March 31, 2008 (CVR), and 
Memorandum to the File entitled ``Verification of the Sales Response of 
Dubai Wire FZE and Its Affiliate Global Fasteners Ltd in the 
Antidumping Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab 
Emirates,'' dated April 1, 2008 (SVR).
    On April 21, 2008, the Department issued a decision memorandum in 
this investigation and the companion investigation on nails from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC) (Nails from the PRC), in which the 
Department described the application of a new methodology to analyze 
targeted dumping. Based on this analysis, the Department did not find a 
pattern of export prices for identical merchandise that differed 
significantly among purchasers. See Memorandum to David Spooner, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled ``Post-
Preliminary Determinations on Targeted Dumping,'' dated April 21, 2008; 
and Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, 
entitled ``Post-Preliminary Determination on Targeted Dumping: Results 
for Dubai Wire FZE/Global Fasteners Ltd,'' dated April 21, 2008. As a 
result, we applied the average-to-average methodology to all U.S. sales 
and found a de minimis margin (0.09 percent) for Dubai Wire. On April 
24, 2008, the Department issued a letter to all parties in the two 
investigations providing clarifications concerning the post-preliminary 
determinations.
    On April 30, 2008, the petitioners and Hilti, Inc. (Hilti), an 
importer of the subject merchandise, filed case briefs. Dubai Wire 
filed a case brief on May 1, 2008. On May 7, 2008, the petitioners and 
Dubai Wire filed rebuttal briefs.
    On May 6, 2008, National Nail Corp., an importer of subject 
merchandise in Nails from the PRC, requested that the Department 
confirm that the scope of this investigation excludes plastic cap 
roofing nails.\2\ The Department rejected this request, and all 
submissions associated with this request, as untimely filed on June 2, 
2008. See Letter from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias to White and Case, dated 
June 2, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The May 6, 2008, submission was filed on the record of the 
UAE investigation on May 7, 2008. On May 12, 2008, the petitioners 
submitted a letter for the record of the PRC investigation opposing 
National Nail Corp.'s exclusion request. This letter was submitted 
for the record of the UAE investigation on May 27, 2008. National 
Nail Corp. responded to this letter on May 20, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 15, 2008, Illinois Tool Works, Inc. and Paslode Fasteners 
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (collectively, ITW) submitted the public version 
of their scope arguments contained in the public version of ITW's 
rebuttal brief filed on May 8, 2008, in Nails from the PRC. See ``Scope 
Comments'' section, below.
    As the Department established a separate briefing schedule on 
targeted dumping issues, the petitioners and Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., 
Ltd., Senco-Xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd., Senco Products, 
Inc., and Omnifast LLC (collectively, Xingya Group), a respondent in 
Nails from the PRC, submitted case briefs with respect to these issues 
on May 7, 2008.\3\ On May 14, 2008, the Xingya Group, ITW, and Dubai 
Wire submitted rebuttal briefs to the petitioners' targeted dumping 
brief.\4\ On May 19, 2008, we held a joint public hearing on the 
targeted dumping issues raised in this investigation and Nails from the 
PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The public version of Xingya Group's brief was submitted for 
the record of this investigation on May 12, 2008.
    \4\ Dubai Wire resubmitted its rebuttal brief on May 16, 2008, 
as the Department rejected the original rebuttal brief because it 
contained arguments that did not address comments made in the 
petitioners' targeted dumping case brief. See Memorandum to The File 
entitled ``Return of Dubai Wire FZE (Dubai Wire) Rebuttal Brief on 
Targeted Dumping Issues,'' dated May 16, 2008. The public versions 
of the petitioners' and ITW's targeted dumping rebuttal briefs filed 
in Nails from the PRC were submitted to this record on May 15, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2006, through March 
31, 2007. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., May 
2007).

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain 
steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails 
include, but are not limited to, nails made of round wire and nails 
that are cut. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or 
constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced 
from any type of steel, and have a variety of finishes, heads, shanks, 
point types, shaft lengths and shaft diameters. Finishes include, but 
are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, whether by 
electroplating or hot-dipping one or more times), phosphate cement, and 
paint. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, 
cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank 
styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, 
ring shank and fluted shank styles. Screw-threaded nails subject to 
this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the 
fastener using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, 
but are not limited to, diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and no point. 
Finished nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated into strips 
or coils using materials such as plastic, paper, or wire. Certain steel 
nails subject to this proceeding are currently classified under the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 
7317.00.55, 7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75.
    Excluded from the scope of this proceeding are roofing nails of all 
lengths and diameter, whether collated or in bulk, and whether or not 
galvanized. Steel roofing nails are specifically enumerated and 
identified in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2005 revision) as Type I, Style 20 
nails. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are corrugated 
nails. A corrugated nail is made of a small strip of corrugated steel 
with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of this 
proceeding are fasteners suitable for use in powder-actuated hand 
tools, not threaded and threaded, which are currently classified under 
HTSUS 7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30. Also excluded from the scope of this 
proceeding are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS 
7317.00.10. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are certain 
brads and finish nails that are equal to or less than 0.0720 inches in 
shank diameter, round or rectangular in cross section, between 0.375 
inches and 2.5 inches in length, and that are collated with adhesive or 
polyester film tape backed with a heat seal adhesive. Also excluded 
from the scope of this proceeding are fasteners having a case hardness 
greater than or equal to 50 HRC, a carbon content greater than or

[[Page 33987]]

equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised 
head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, 
suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools.
    While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

Scope Comments

Banded Brads and Finish Nails

    On July 30, 2007,\5\ Stanley Fastening Systems, LP (Stanley), an 
interested party in this proceeding, requested that banded brads and 
finish nails imported with a ``nailer kit'' or ``combo kit'' as a 
single package be excluded from this investigation as being outside the 
``class or kind''\6\ of merchandise.\7\ Based on the scope exclusion 
request from Stanley, the fact that the petitioners are in agreement 
with this request, and that there appears to be no impediment to 
enforceability by CBP, we preliminarily determined that the above-
described products are not subject to the scope of this investigation. 
Since the Preliminary Determination, no party to this proceeding has 
commented on this issue and we have found no additional information 
that would compel us to reverse our preliminary finding. Thus, for 
purposes of the final determination, we continue to find that the 
above-described products are not subject to the scope of this 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This submission was filed on the record of Nails from the 
PRC on July 30, 2007, and on the record of the instant investigation 
on January 7, 2008.
    \6\ A ``nailer kit'' consists of a pneumatic nailer, a ``starter 
box'' of branded products and a carrying case. A ``combo kit'' 
consists of an air compressor, a pneumatic nailer, and a ``starter 
box'' of banded products and related accessories, such as an air 
hose.
    \7\ On December 12, 2007, Stanley revised its July 30, 2007, 
scope exclusion request arguing that its new request reflects a 
broader exclusion and could be easily administered by U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) because the description of the excluded 
brads and finish nails is framed solely in terms of their physical 
characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fasteners Suitable for Use in Gas-Actuated Hand Tools

    In its case brief filed on April 30, 2008, Hilti, an interested 
party in this proceeding, reiterated its request, submitted on January 
8, 2008, that the Department modify the scope of the investigation to 
exclude fasteners suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools.\8\ Hilti 
claimed that modification of the scope to exclude these fasteners was 
supported by the petitioners\9\ and, additionally, because the 
description of the excluded nails is framed solely in terms of their 
physical characteristics, the exclusion could be easily administered by 
CBP. Furthermore, Hilti pointed out that the principles and rationale 
the Department applied to Stanley's scope request (see discussion 
above) in the Preliminary Determination applied equally to Hilti's 
scope request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We stated in the Preliminary Determination that we received 
this request too late to consider for purposes of the preliminary 
determination, but would consider it for the final determination.
    \9\ On January 9, 2008, the petitioners filed a letter stating 
that they agree with Hilti's January 8, 2008, scope exclusion 
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hilti rebutted ITW's January 8, 2008, submission arguing that ITW 
offered no material reason for seeking the imposition of antidumping 
duties against the product at issue, other than its assertion that it 
is a U.S. manufacturer of such merchandise. Moreover, Hilti claimed 
that ITW has never opposed the petitioners' own initial exclusion of 
nails suitable for use in powder- actuated hand tools, which Hilti 
claimed are functionally similar and competitive with nails suitable 
for use in gas-actuated tools, but simply classified under a different 
HTSUS subheading.
    In its rebuttal brief submitted on May 8, 2008, in Nails from the 
PRC,\10\ ITW reiterated its arguments in its January 8, 2008, 
submission that, because it is the only U.S. producer of the product at 
issue, the petitioners' agreement to the proposed exclusion is not 
relevant in light of ITW's opposition. In addition, ITW claimed that it 
is perfectly reasonable and legitimate for it to oppose a petition 
generally, while at the same time opposing certain exclusions to that 
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This brief was submitted for the UAE record on May 15, 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the scope exclusion request from Hilti, the fact that the 
petitioners are in agreement with this request, and that there appears 
to be no impediment to enforceability by CBP,\11\ we have determined 
that the above-described products are not subject to the scope of this 
investigation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Memorandum to the File from Kate Johnson, Senior Case 
Analyst, entitled ``Scope Exclusion Request,'' dated May 1, 2008.
    \12\ While the Department notes ITW's objection, it strives to 
craft a scope that both includes the specific products for which the 
petitioners have requested relief, and excludes those products which 
may fall within the general scope definition, but for which the 
petitioners do not seek relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aluminum Nails and Stainless Steel Nails

    On February 27, 2008, Duo-Fast Northeast (Duo-Fast), an interested 
party in this proceeding, requested that the Department exclude two 
types of nails from the scope of this proceeding: (1) aluminum nails, 
and (2) stainless steel nails.\13\ The plain language of the scope 
indicates that the scope does not cover aluminum nails because nails 
made from aluminum are not made from steel and are, thus, not subject 
merchandise. However, stainless steel nails are explicitly covered in 
the scope of this proceeding, as the plain language of the scope covers 
nails produced from any type of steel, without limitation. Therefore, 
we have not modified the scope of investigation in accordance with Duo-
Fast's requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ On March 18, 2008, the petitioners submitted a letter for 
the record opposing Duo-Fast's exclusion request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Targeted Dumping

    We have analyzed the case and rebuttal briefs with respect to 
targeted dumping issues submitted for the record in this investigation 
and in Nails from the PRC. As a result of our analysis, we made certain 
changes in the targeted dumping test we applied in the post-preliminary 
determination for purposes of the final determination. These changes 
continued to result in a negative targeted dumping finding for Dubai 
Wire. For further discussion, see Comments 1 through 9 in the ``Issues 
and Decision Memorandum'' (Decision Memo) from Stephen J. Claeys, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. 
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 6, 
2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice. See also Memorandum to 
The File entitled ``Dubai Wire FZE/Global Fasteners Ltd. Final 
Determination Margin Calculation,'' dated June 6, 2008.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the 
parties to this investigation are addressed in the Decision Memo. A 
list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have 
responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this 
notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all 
issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding 
recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit, room 1117 of the main Department building. In 
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed 
directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

[[Page 33988]]

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and 
cost information submitted by Dubai Wire for use in our final 
determination. We used standard verification procedures including an 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original 
source documents provided by Dubai Wire. See CVR and SVR.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at 
verification, we have made certain changes to the margin calculation 
for Dubai Wire. For a discussion of these changes, see the ``Margin 
Calculations'' section of the Decision Memo.

Final Determination Margins

    We determine that the weighted-average dumping margins are as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                                                       Margin Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dubai Wire FZE/Global Fasteners Ltd.................                0.00
All Others..........................................                0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Termination of Suspension of Liquidation

    Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the sole 
investigated company is 0.00 percent (de minimis), we will direct CBP 
to terminate the suspension of liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after January 23, 2008, and to release any bond or 
other security, and refund any cash deposit.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our final determination.

Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: June 6, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum

Targeted Dumping Issues

Comment 1: Appropriateness of Implementing New Methodology in this 
Investigation
Comment 2: Identifying Alleged Targets
Comment 3: Statistical Validity of Standard Deviation Test
Comment 4: Reliance on Identical Products for Determining Targeted 
Dumping
Comment 5: Alleged Masking of Dumping Under 33-Percent Pattern Test 
Threshold
Comment 6: Flaws of ``Gap Test
Comment 7: Alleged Masking of Dumping by Respondents Under Standard 
Deviation Test
Comment 8: Statistical Validity of P/2 Test
Comment 9: Programming Errors

Company-Specific Calculation Issues

Comment 10: Addition of G&A, Financial and Selling Expenses to GFL 
Processing Costs
Comment 11: Weight-Averaging of Dubai Wire and GFL Expenses for G&A and 
Financial Expense Ratios
Comment 12: Scrap Offset Revisions
Comment 13: Affiliated Party Loans and Leases
Comment 14: Calculation of Financial Expense Offset
Comment 15: Adjustment of GFL CV Profit Ratio for COM Revisions
Comment 16: Calculation of CV Selling Expenses and Profit Based on GFL 
Screw Sales
Comment 17: LOT Adjustment for CV Comparisons
[FR Doc. E8-13490 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S